So the Viking king Harald kills the English king Harold at Stamford bridge before William can defeat the English at Hastings. Are the saxons even worse off now? Would this leave no one to stand in the way of the Norman conquest?
1066: Harold Killed at Stamford Bridge
- Thread starter JimmyJimJam
- Start date
I don't see much difference. Godwinson's troops will still likely scatter and crush Hardrada's forces; if they do not, then it is the tattered remnants of Harald's army, and not Harold's, which is crushed by William.
Redbeard
Banned
Forum Lurker said:
Why? Both battles appear quite narrow run.
Another interesting PoD could be if Canute IV's planned invasion of England in 1086 takes place. He had gathered a huge fleet and army, when a rebellion broke out in another part of the realm and against which a part of the army/fleet had to be diverted. Meanwhile the rest waited in idleness, got bored and rebelled too, eventually killing the King (in a chuch, which got him a sainthood, not bad for a brutal SoaB).
The army/fleet he gathered was from the early "Leding" system i.e. a kind of total mobilisation damanding of each farm to raise an armed and supplied man, each village/"parish" a ship etc. It probably contained thousands of ships each with 20 or more men.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Well, Stamford Bridge is sort of the semifinals - whoever wins gets to go up against Billy the Bastard.
If Harold is killed but his army still wins, does a leader emerge who can reverse field and march against Billy? If so, he either loses, with a result much like OTL, or he wins, and A-S England survives to fight another day. If the English are victorious at Stamford Bridge but left disorganized afterwards, Billy gets a freebie. If Harald Hardrada wins, he's the one who gets to fight Billy, win or lose, and England has either a Norwegian king or a Norman one.
But here's an interesting question: If William's invasion is not effectively opposed - either because the English are left leaderless after winning at Stamford, or they prefer him to Hardrada after losing at Stamford - is the Norman Conquest as transformative as it was in OTL? Probably it is, because any scenario in which William wins at all leaves him with an army to pay off, and the payoff is still land.
Canute IV. Hmm. It sounds like the guy was cruisin' for a bruisin' even if the invasion went off - if his army was willing to mutiny and murder him at the drop of a horned helmet, how long would he have lasted even if he invaded and won. (Note: Yes, I know the Vikes didn't really wear horned helmets.
)
But if he invades, and beats Billy, does that effectively restore A-S England, even if under a Norse king? How solidly was the Norman aristocracy and knightly class established in England, 20 years after the Conquest?
-- Rick
If Harold is killed but his army still wins, does a leader emerge who can reverse field and march against Billy? If so, he either loses, with a result much like OTL, or he wins, and A-S England survives to fight another day. If the English are victorious at Stamford Bridge but left disorganized afterwards, Billy gets a freebie. If Harald Hardrada wins, he's the one who gets to fight Billy, win or lose, and England has either a Norwegian king or a Norman one.
But here's an interesting question: If William's invasion is not effectively opposed - either because the English are left leaderless after winning at Stamford, or they prefer him to Hardrada after losing at Stamford - is the Norman Conquest as transformative as it was in OTL? Probably it is, because any scenario in which William wins at all leaves him with an army to pay off, and the payoff is still land.
Canute IV. Hmm. It sounds like the guy was cruisin' for a bruisin' even if the invasion went off - if his army was willing to mutiny and murder him at the drop of a horned helmet, how long would he have lasted even if he invaded and won. (Note: Yes, I know the Vikes didn't really wear horned helmets.
)But if he invades, and beats Billy, does that effectively restore A-S England, even if under a Norse king? How solidly was the Norman aristocracy and knightly class established in England, 20 years after the Conquest?
-- Rick
If both Harold and Harald had died then there could easily still be Anglo-Saxon leaders, his rbothers for example who all held importnat positions, not to mention the Northern Earls. In this case I doubt things would ahve been very different, except the Battle fo Hastings might not be such a close fought thing.
I suspect that if Harold had died but Harald lived then he would have continued to march southwards, getting towns and counties to acknowledge him, just as York did before Stamford Bridge. I doubt this army would ahve moved anywhere as quickly as Harold's did in OTL and would never have got the news of William's landing so quickly.
Once William lands, with Harold dead I suspect he will march first to London and then there would be a battle to the north of London to decide the argument. It's difficult to know what the Anglo-Saxons would do, I suspect they might side with Harald Haradara, as by this time England is best described as an Anglo-Danish nation and the Normans were unpopular in the south of England at least due to the actions of Edward the Confessor's Norman favourites in the 1050s. There is always the possibility that the English might stand aside and let the two fight it out and then finish off the victor but I have my doubts...
As to Canute, well there could be enough of the old Anglo-Saxon nobility left, though a lot died in 1066-68 quite a few were simply dispossed of their lands by William to make way for the Normans. It would all depend how Canute wnated to see himself, as a conquerer or liberator? If the later then I suspect he would seize all the land given to the Normans, where the previous Anglo-Saxon owners were still alive return it to them and keep the baalnce for himself and his followers. I suspect the usual would then happen, when Canute died the Norse-English empire would seperate, with the English proclaiming a seperate King of England, possibly Edgar Atheling
I suspect that if Harold had died but Harald lived then he would have continued to march southwards, getting towns and counties to acknowledge him, just as York did before Stamford Bridge. I doubt this army would ahve moved anywhere as quickly as Harold's did in OTL and would never have got the news of William's landing so quickly.
Once William lands, with Harold dead I suspect he will march first to London and then there would be a battle to the north of London to decide the argument. It's difficult to know what the Anglo-Saxons would do, I suspect they might side with Harald Haradara, as by this time England is best described as an Anglo-Danish nation and the Normans were unpopular in the south of England at least due to the actions of Edward the Confessor's Norman favourites in the 1050s. There is always the possibility that the English might stand aside and let the two fight it out and then finish off the victor but I have my doubts...
As to Canute, well there could be enough of the old Anglo-Saxon nobility left, though a lot died in 1066-68 quite a few were simply dispossed of their lands by William to make way for the Normans. It would all depend how Canute wnated to see himself, as a conquerer or liberator? If the later then I suspect he would seize all the land given to the Normans, where the previous Anglo-Saxon owners were still alive return it to them and keep the baalnce for himself and his followers. I suspect the usual would then happen, when Canute died the Norse-English empire would seperate, with the English proclaiming a seperate King of England, possibly Edgar Atheling
Rick Robinson said:Well, Stamford Bridge is sort of the semifinals - whoever wins gets to go up against Billy the Bastard.
If Harold is killed but his army still wins, does a leader emerge who can reverse field and march against Billy? If so, he either loses, with a result much like OTL, or he wins, and A-S England survives to fight another day. If the English are victorious at Stamford Bridge but left disorganized afterwards, Billy gets a freebie. If Harald Hardrada wins, he's the one who gets to fight Billy, win or lose, and England has either a Norwegian king or a Norman one.
But here's an interesting question: If William's invasion is not effectively opposed - either because the English are left leaderless after winning at Stamford, or they prefer him to Hardrada after losing at Stamford - is the Norman Conquest as transformative as it was in OTL? Probably it is, because any scenario in which William wins at all leaves him with an army to pay off, and the payoff is still land.
Canute IV. Hmm. It sounds like the guy was cruisin' for a bruisin' even if the invasion went off - if his army was willing to mutiny and murder him at the drop of a horned helmet, how long would he have lasted even if he invaded and won. (Note: Yes, I know the Vikes didn't really wear horned helmets.
But if he invades, and beats Billy, does that effectively restore A-S England, even if under a Norse king? How solidly was the Norman aristocracy and knightly class established in England, 20 years after the Conquest?
-- Rick
If Harold had died at Stamford, many of the remaining English Lords wouild probably have gone home or pledged their oaths to Harald Hardraada, who was a sort of legend at the time.
If Harald had won, he might not have gone against the Normans to the South, preferring instead to divide the country with William.
As to Harold's family, although there were several brothers, the only one in play was Tostig who was hated by the English for his excesses when he was Earl of Northumbria, although the Scots might have liked him, and Tostig was on Harald's side.
If the country had been divided, the north oriented to Norway and the SOuth to France, the chances are the English would probably have been treated much better than they were by the Normans, because there would have been some place they could have gone to.
If Harald had won, he might not have gone against the Normans to the South, preferring instead to divide the country with William.
As to Harold's family, although there were several brothers, the only one in play was Tostig who was hated by the English for his excesses when he was Earl of Northumbria, although the Scots might have liked him, and Tostig was on Harald's side.
If the country had been divided, the north oriented to Norway and the SOuth to France, the chances are the English would probably have been treated much better than they were by the Normans, because there would have been some place they could have gone to.
Don't know, both Harald and William wanted the whole country, they would have gone for each other-neither man was one to settle to half or second best! You must also remember there was no love for the Normans in the South, and whilst Harald H was hardly a model ruler, there were very strong links between the whole of England and Scandinavia at this time. Edward the C had tried to turn England towards Europe but failed-better the Viking you sort of know than the untrustworthy, scummy, horrible, barbaric little Norman
Also Harold's brothers were very active, they were Earls, etc, fought with him both at Stamford and Hastings. In the event of Harold's death one of them would have taken over. You have to remember Harold's brothers tried to persuade him to stay in London whilst they led the army to fight William, just in case so he could raise reinforcements but Harold said 'no'. All the family were powerful and respected. As to Tostig, yes he was with Harald and quite frankly if Harold had had any common sense he would have dealt with his annoying little brother years before rather than putting up with his stupidity. The only reason we hear a lot about Tostig is because he was a
-Traitor
-Bloody useless governor of the North who managed to cause a rebellion
-Nun raper
and so makes good copy.
The other brothers were good rulers who supported their brother, so aren't so news worthy.
Also Harold's brothers were very active, they were Earls, etc, fought with him both at Stamford and Hastings. In the event of Harold's death one of them would have taken over. You have to remember Harold's brothers tried to persuade him to stay in London whilst they led the army to fight William, just in case so he could raise reinforcements but Harold said 'no'. All the family were powerful and respected. As to Tostig, yes he was with Harald and quite frankly if Harold had had any common sense he would have dealt with his annoying little brother years before rather than putting up with his stupidity. The only reason we hear a lot about Tostig is because he was a
-Traitor
-Bloody useless governor of the North who managed to cause a rebellion
-Nun raper
and so makes good copy.
The other brothers were good rulers who supported their brother, so aren't so news worthy.
Norman said:
So Hardraada wins in the North and William wins in the South while Hardraada is consolidating his position in the North.
Because of Norman Harshness southern Anglo Saxons thanes and rulers go North and pledge to Harald, who in turn builds an even larger army and takes out William.
Net effect on History???
Because of Norman Harshness southern Anglo Saxons thanes and rulers go North and pledge to Harald, who in turn builds an even larger army and takes out William.
Net effect on History???
Harald rules his empire for a few years, his own lands at peace but given the fact he is one hell of a warrior everyone else is in fear. He decides to teach the Normans a lesson and invades Normandy with an Anglo-Norse Army. He doesn't conquer but extracts tribute, etc. For Normandy it's the last straw and it effectively comes under the rule of the King of France? (Oh God, think about it, no Normans taking over Southern Italy, none going on Crusades)
At his death, his empire falls apart, as usually happened. The Witan meets in England and Edgar Athleing is elected King. England remains Anglo-Saxon but continues to look towards Scandinavia rather than 'France'. This could lead to big changes in attitudes to Wales and Scotland, I'll think and post later.
At his death, his empire falls apart, as usually happened. The Witan meets in England and Edgar Athleing is elected King. England remains Anglo-Saxon but continues to look towards Scandinavia rather than 'France'. This could lead to big changes in attitudes to Wales and Scotland, I'll think and post later.
Norman said:
Yep I know, my first post here but heres something to throw into the mix:
Halrada draws in support from the Lord of the Isles & The King of the Isle of Man to help consolidate his conquest of the north, forcing William to a stalemate, and effectively re-establishing the Danelaw.
This diminishing of his English realm lead William and his descendants to concentrate more effort on the Angevin Empire.
How the Scots would have responded to a Scandinavian encirclement is anyones guess, and Gaelic Ireland could once again come under pressure from the Scandinavians
Of course it could always be arranged for the Vikings to retain their influence over Ireland from Dublin
Halrada draws in support from the Lord of the Isles & The King of the Isle of Man to help consolidate his conquest of the north, forcing William to a stalemate, and effectively re-establishing the Danelaw.
This diminishing of his English realm lead William and his descendants to concentrate more effort on the Angevin Empire.
How the Scots would have responded to a Scandinavian encirclement is anyones guess, and Gaelic Ireland could once again come under pressure from the Scandinavians
Of course it could always be arranged for the Vikings to retain their influence over Ireland from Dublin
Flocculencio
Donor
Carlito said:
Can William afford to do this politically, though? He's just fought a war to gain the throne of England and now he finds that he's only ruling half of it. I'd think he'd have to campaign North and it's more likely that the Vikings and the Normans will end up in a series of wars to determine just who the major power in the British Isles really is.
Welcome to the Board
Sorry ,just thought of another consequence of this division.
Neither the Scandinavians nor the Normans can risk incursions into Wales for fear that the other will attack their territories whilst they are otherwise engaged in guerilla warfare with the Welsh Princes.
Hence Wales retains it's independence. This could possibly bring about a Gaelic shpere of influence centred on the Irish Sea, which benefits from trade with both the Norse and the Norman "superpowers"?
Neither the Scandinavians nor the Normans can risk incursions into Wales for fear that the other will attack their territories whilst they are otherwise engaged in guerilla warfare with the Welsh Princes.
Hence Wales retains it's independence. This could possibly bring about a Gaelic shpere of influence centred on the Irish Sea, which benefits from trade with both the Norse and the Norman "superpowers"?
Flocculencio said:
Ah, but he's rulling the more arable part of it, with fertile land that he can parcel out to his nobles!
He's also out-flanked the French throne by placing himself in a position where he can either launch a land attack from Normandy itself, or a marine assault across the English channel.
IIRC, the Conquest relied on swift consolidation of gains, followed by an iron grip for several years to avoid a rebellion. With a smaller territory and perhaps the threat of a Viking invasion dangled above it (a la the French threat to the English colonists in America) the conquered population might not have been so reluctant to accept Norman rule.
Flocculencio
Donor
Carlito said:
But this makes it even more important for William to crush the North. A lot of the Saxon thanes may have fled into the Danelaw to declare their allegiance to Hardraada. This means that unless he moves North to end this threat swiftly he's leaving himself open for a general uprising.
Assuming that the Saxons still win at Stamford Bridge with someone else in charge , they might win against William as well.
Instead of the forced march ordered by Harold , the Saxons might chose to wait a week or two , rest their soldiers , and wait for the reinforcements to come. Then , they could outnumber William by 2 to 1 , and the Saxons would be more motivated and not tired , as they were in OTL at Hastings.
Instead of the forced march ordered by Harold , the Saxons might chose to wait a week or two , rest their soldiers , and wait for the reinforcements to come. Then , they could outnumber William by 2 to 1 , and the Saxons would be more motivated and not tired , as they were in OTL at Hastings.
Flocculencio said:
Which is why I pencilled in them fighting to a stalemate- Halrada was as at least good a leader and tactitian as William, and could arguably draw on a wider base of support (Lord of the Isles etc) to wage a prolonged campaign, where as William, fighting far from his base in a hostile territory with a limited force relied on a swift victory. If this wasn't acheived then he might have to sue for peace rather than risk loosing what he had gained. There is also the question of wheter France, already disturbed by his agressive expansionist programe would have stood by whilst he waged a campaign against Halrada.
Fighting the Norwegians on one front whilst having to protect Normandy from the ambitions of France, and at the same time having to pin down a conquered population, he might just have been prepared to compromise. He could also rely on Halrada to die in due course, with the resulting fracturing of his empire to his sons, and pick them off in a peicemeal fashion later - let the Norwegians subjicate the North and he can then ride in as liberator, when Halrada's sons make a pigs ear of it.